Real vs 3d question

[jf3000]

In star wars or star trek or any other show, how do they make everything look so real, yet when i render it looks like im looking at errr you know what i mean, how does one get that realish feeling kinda thing?

[evil_genius_180]

They have the most badass computers available linked together to simulate a super computer, usually Lightwave, and textures that would make your computer choke. Basically, there's not too much any of us can do to compete with that.

Don't let Evil Genius dissuade you from continuing to learn and practice your art. The number one thing influencing a 3D render is the textures. Beginner 3D tends to look plastic and ultra-clean because beginners user very basic textures. Experiment and look for tutorials -- learn how to "dirty" things up so that look more like the imperfect reality we live in. Apply a simple "cloud" texture to the specularity channel of any texture and see how it sullies the rendered surface into looking like something that has been touched and handled. Apply a little noise to the bump channel, make custom maps that put dirt in the "corners" of models where they'd get less traffic. (Some packages have an automatic feature for that kind of dirt.) Rework the basic textures included with your package. Take glass, for example. Most default glasses look too bright because the primary color is white. Make it black with white highlights (specularity). Look at real glass -- it gets dark or black in some areas, right?

Following closely in importance is lighting. Actually learn how to light a scene. It's a common failing of video users to stop worrying when they can see a picture. Look at books on photography lighting -- learn about basic three-point lighting, then experiment with breaking those basic rules. Don't be afraid to be dramatic. Look at the theatrical lighting in any of the original STAR TREK episodes versus the flat "fluorescent" lighting in TNG.

One important aspect of lighting actually has to do with modeling. Real world objects rarely have perfectly planed edges. Apply a tiny rounding (or beveling to save polygons) to all edges and see how it catches the light.

There's more than I can talk about here -- like multi-pass rendering if your package includes it (useful for controlling the look of a shot even after it is rendered), depth of field, subtle touches like transmission (the quality of a material that lets diffuse light show through it, like Shrek's back-lit ears) or halation (that highlight glow used throughout THE INCREDIBLES). You may think some of this stuff is out of reach if it is not included in your 3D package (production studios often have proprietary software written by their in-house coders), but don't let that be an excuse. Don't be lazy. Look at the world around you and then learn how to make your software do it. Where there's a will, there's a way. Think beyond the mere buttons and controls of your software. Way-back-when someone had to invent the things we take for granted today. (Look into the history of 2D animation and movie special effects. A lot of that "old stuff" is still applicable today, or it may spark an idea.)

I am but a humble newbie, but everybody keeps telling me that crafting the 3D mesh of the starship is only one-third of the job.

Equally important are creating multi-layered textures, and setting up finely tuned lighting rigs.

[evil_genius_180]

Originally Posted by nyrath

I am but a humble newbie, but everybody keeps telling me that crafting the 3D mesh of the starship is only one-third of the job.

Equally important are creating multi-layered textures, and setting up finely tuned lighting rigs.

That's very true. I didn't mean that you couldn't do some beautiful 3D work, I've seen some stuff that takes my breath away done by weekend artists, not just the pros. One thing that screws a lot of people is .jpg format textures. They can be great if you've got some high quality, about 8k textures or better in .jpg format. Otherwise, you'll get better results using .gif or .bmp (my preferred format) textures. The problem with .jgp is that it's usually way compressed to save you from having huge downloads and looks like hammered s**t when viewed close up. So, if you're making your own texutes, I'd recommend either saving to a very high quality, non compressed .jpg or a .gif or .bmp format. You'll love the results a lot more than you would with a compressed .jpg.

And, of course Poly count is key also. Those ships in the movies are probably beasts, but you too can create beautiful high poly models to use and that will increase your image quality along with that dreaded lighting rig everyone keeps mentioning.

Those are really good tips Metryq, thanks

Originally Posted by evil_genius_180

And, of course Poly count is key also. Those ships in the movies are probably beasts, but you too can create beautiful high poly models to use and that will increase your image quality along with that dreaded lighting rig everyone keeps mentioning.

Yes and no. High poly count is no guarantee of a better final image. One of the things I learned early while reading about movie FX is that detail can actually work against you. Some matte paintings (the paintings on glass) look incredibly crude when viewed in person -- brush strokes, blobs of paint. Splat! "No way, that can't be the real painting." In the second Indiana Jones movie there was a mine car chase photographed with models and 20 cm dolls. The dolls were practically paper maché quality, yet looked entirely real on camera. It's true that all the shots in the completed film were very quick, but the reason the crude dolls worked, while more detailed models would look "fake" has to do with scale. The camera was within a meter or so of the models, but in scale that turns into tens of meters , and sometimes more. When someone is half a city block away from you, how much detail can you really make out on their face, and how much is filled in by your mind?

Use just enough model resolution to avoid obvious faceting on curves, but don't go overboard thinking polygons alone will give you realism. Look at how fantastically low-res game figures are, then look at how detailed they appear with artfully created maps on them, tricking your eye with painted-on highlight and shadow. Modeling and lighting have their influence, but textures are the key to "realism." Take a look at the latest "Code Guardian" trailer over at cee-gee.net. In a fast shot you may not notice the roughness of the paint on the Nazi robot, but that scuff near the swastika on the arm gives you scale and a rough, lived-in feel.

[evil_genius_180]

All true. However, a sphere with 100 latitude and 100 longitude will look more like an actual sphere than one with 50 x 50, that's all I meant. I've seen where people use low poly spheres for planets and you can see the segmentation. That's what I was referring to, not that it will necessarily make your final image look outstanding, but it will help your mesh look better. I don't go for extremely high poly myself, (mostly because of the age of my PC) just enough so my curves look like curves, not polygons. (geometric polygons, not the faces that are referred to as polygons [no matter their shape] in the 3D world.) If I were to animate, I would use lower poly due to the fact that it will render more quickly and because it wouldn't matter because, with a ship whipping by at impulse speed, it will be blurred enough that it won't be noticeable.

Another thing I've found in my 3D work that makes my images look a lot better is Gimp, which is similar to Photoshop, only it's free. I tweak the images to make them look more realistic and try to smooth out the harsh lines that you always get, even with anti-aliasing maxed out.